[Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] Re: RGC Spin 2023 Talk

Gregory Matousek gregory.matousek at duke.edu
Sat Sep 23 20:23:04 EDT 2023 

Thank you both Carlos and Sebastian for your comments. Attached is an updated PDF, as well as my response to several of the comments. Please feel free to send over more suggestions! I also highlighted some potential discussion points in blue that could use some further input.


  *   Slides 2 and 3 could be just one and very brief. There will be MANY JLab talks in SPIN and a detailed description is not necessary. Be brief here.

     *   I will definitely keep the discussion of JLab and CEBAF brief. Currently I’m timing in at about 2 minutes for just these two slides total. I also figured since I’m one of the earlier Monday talks at SPIN, a quick overview of the lab would be appropriate

  *   Slide 4, notice that you are repeating the capabilities of the accelerator (polarization, energy).  In the slide, you combine facts or RGC with what should be CLAS description (title of the slide). If I am not wrong (quite possible), could be better to say that CLAS can handle a luminosity of 10^35 (??) which will set, depending on the target, the max current.

     *   Made the luminosity adjustment

  *   Slide 5, not sure that I understand the cartoon on the side. Move it lower to cover a bit of the white space.

     *   Moved.

  *   Slide 7 should be what is different from Slide 4 for RGC. Perhaps a brief explanation why the two configurations? Maybe address it in particular experiments?

     *   Open to recommendations for what to mention for the 8nA configuration, but I gave some extra detail about the FT and its relevance for low Q2 studies and for widening the DVCS kinematic coverage (I also highlight this during the pDVCS section)

  *   Slide 8 and 9, since Pushpa will present the target with more detail, just make one slide and point the most relevant factors of it.

     *   I guess 1K trolley you mean, 1K refrigerator trolley.

     *   Target embedded within a 5T solenoid magnet

     *   not sure if it is important to mention the cryogenics details, but maybe mention the temperature achieved.

     *   could be nice to mention the range of polarization achieved, measured with the NMR in place. You can mention that is a matter of discussion (kinda)--> Slide 11

     *   Removed info about the cryogenics, now adding an additional image of the installed target. Also edited wording in bullets. I also did already slash away a slide on DNP from the polarized target section. I feel comfortable with the timing having two slides on it currently.

  *   Slide 10, not sure what do you want to show here. You can mention in a previous slide that the experiment were monitored with several systems, as a fast replay of the data (the histograms shown here), EPICS and labView (the NMR?)

     *   Not sure what you mean by fast replay? I was going to present this slide by prefacing the need for new monitoring tools due to the polarized target (raster system, live NMR, beam charge asymmetries). What slide do you think would be best to mention this first?

  *   Slide 11, ummmhhh... I believe, that the title has a more broad meaning of what you are showing.

     *   my suggestion: G Matousek, Duke U, N. Pilleux, IJCLab, Université Paris Saclay

     *   maybe more contrasted colors of Noemie's plots?

     *   Following Sebastian’s suggestion here. Unfortunately I do not think we have a higher contrast released PbPt elastic result

  *   Slide 12 again, I believe the title has a broader meaning wrt what you are showing, a VERY specific effort in the calibration. Give it a thought about it

     *   D. Holmberg, WM

     *   Retitled

  *   Slide 13, this shows something that MAYBE should be mentioned before, the different targets used in the experiment, the production ones, the optics and the calibration ones. I would rephrase a bit the wording in the box, like you will describe the NH3 analysis. I guess you will need to explain (just speaking it), what do you mean with the timeline.

     *   I agree that the left plot is a challenge to articulate in one fell swoop. The legend on the right will be a good reference for what I will be stressing when I talk about it, with a major takeaway of how extensive the program was, the lack of significant downtime between target swapping, etc.

  *   Slide 14, 15 H. Avakian, JLab, make the names in black bold (also in the previous slides)

     *   Fixed, waiting on others’ thoughts on the affiliation

  *   Slide 16, 17 T. Hayward, UConn

     *   Fixed, waiting on others’ thoughts on the affiliation

  *   Slides 18, 19 N. Pilleux, IJCLab, Université Paris Saclay <-- ask Noemie or Silvia for a shorter name

     *   Fixed, waiting on others’ thoughts on the affiliation

  *   Slide 20, I noticed that you used a different font for e-, d, but here p and n are just italics. Try to keep the same style

     *   target and beam (do not use &)

     *   I would put "Large Acceptance..." which is given by the capabilities of CLAS, as first item.

     *   Fixed!

  *   I guess that was a decision taken in the Analysis meeting, but I miss something more deep from your work in the talk. Something that can bring you into the light among the community.

     *   Unfortunately, the measurement I am most interested in performing (the dihadron UL/LL asymmetries) has not been thoroughly investigated. I took a day or two to overlook the current status of the measurement’s error bars and they are far too large given the lack of statistics. Furthermore, we are still hammering out the systematics for my future RG-A dihadron release. I appreciate the thought though! Harut will still be presenting a portion of my released results in the exclusive rho+ channel at RG-A



________________________________
From: Carlos Ayerbe Gayoso <gayoso at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 6:14 PM
To: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>; Gregory Matousek <gregory.matousek at duke.edu>
Subject: Re: RGC Spin 2023 Talk

Hi Greg,

my two cents:

  *   I see that it is a summary talk of RGC. So, so many things to talk. So, I am trying to reduce the load.
  *   Slides 2 and 3 could be just one and very brief. There will be MANY JLab talks in SPIN and a detailed description is not necessary. Be brief here.
  *   Slide 4, notice that you are repeating the capabilities of the accelerator (polarization, energy).  In the slide, you combine facts or RGC with what should be CLAS description (title of the slide). If I am not wrong (quite possible), could be better to say that CLAS can handle a luminosity of 10^35 (??) which will set, depending on the target, the max current.
  *   Slide 5, not sure that I understand the cartoon on the side. Move it lower to cover a bit of the white space.
  *   Slide 7 should be what is different from Slide 4 for RGC. Perhaps a brief explanation why the two configurations? Maybe address it in particular experiments?
  *   Slide 8 and 9, since Pushpa will present the target with more detail, just make one slide and point the most relevant factors of it.
     *   I guess 1K trolley you mean, 1K refrigerator trolley.
     *   Target embedded within a 5T solenoid magnet
     *   not sure if it is important to mention the cryogenics details, but maybe mention the temperature achieved.
     *   could be nice to mention the range of polarization achieved, measured with the NMR in place. You can mention that is a matter of discussion (kinda)--> Slide 11
  *   Slide 10, not sure what do you want to show here. You can mention in a previous slide that the experiment were monitored with several systems, as a fast replay of the data (the histograms shown here), EPICS and labView (the NMR?)
  *   Slide 11, ummmhhh... I believe, that the title has a more broad meaning of what you are showing.
     *   my suggestion: G Matousek, Duke U, N. Pilleux, IJCLab, Université Paris Saclay
     *   maybe more contrasted colors of Noemie's plots?
  *   Slide 12 again, I believe the title has a broader meaning wrt what you are showing, a VERY specific effort in the calibration. Give it a thought about it
     *   D. Holmberg, WM
  *   Slide 13, this shows something that MAYBE should be mentioned before, the different targets used in the experiment, the production ones, the optics and the calibration ones. I would rephrase a bit the wording in the box, like you will describe the NH3 analysis. I guess you will need to explain (just speaking it), what do you mean with the timeline.
  *   Slide 14, 15 H. Avakian, JLab, make the names in black bold (also in the previous slides)
  *   Slide 16, 17 T. Hayward, UConn
  *   Slides 18, 19 N. Pilleux, IJCLab, Université Paris Saclay <-- ask Noemie or Silvia for a shorter name
  *   Slide 20, I noticed that you used a different font for e-, d, but here p and n are just italics. Try to keep the same style
     *   target and beam (do not use &)
     *   I would put "Large Acceptance..." which is given by the capabilities of CLAS, as first item.
  *   I guess that was a decision taken in the Analysis meeting, but I miss something more deep from your work in the talk. Something that can bring you into the light among the community.

Greg, maybe my list is very long, some of the points are just suggestions that won't change the content, some of them are items that people with deeper knowledge than me would tell if they are correct or not. Just read the list and think about it.

Good luck!!

Cheers
-Carlos

-------------------------------------------------
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.
________________________________
From: Gregory Matousek via Rgc_analysis <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:41 AM
To: rgc_analysis at jlab.org <rgc_analysis at jlab.org>
Subject: [Rgc_analysis] [EXTERNAL] RGC Spin 2023 Talk

Hi all,

Here are the updated slides for the RGC talk I'm giving on Monday September 25th at SPIN. Please feel free to send over any feedback!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230924/cc777312/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Matousek_SPIN2023_v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 6155522 bytes
Desc: Matousek_SPIN2023_v2.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rgc_analysis/attachments/20230924/cc777312/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the Rgc_analysis mailing list